ORDER : S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.08.2019 passed on IA.no.1/2017 in FDP.No.15016/2004 by the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.15197/1999 was filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru by Smt. Puttamma and others, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and also for declaration that plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5 th share in the suit schedule properties, and further to declare that the alleged sale deed executed by late Gullappa and defendant no.5 pertaining to Item no.2 of the suit schedule properties, as null and void. 4. One Nagappa Reddy was defendant no.2 in O.S.No.15197/1999. The said suit was partly decreed and it was held that plaintiffs are entitled for 4/15 th share in Item nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties and plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in Item no.4 of the suit schedule property. 5. Final Decree Proceedings in FDP.No.15016/2004 was initiated by plaintiff no.1 before the Trial Court. In the said proceedings, IA-1/2017 was filed by the petitioners under Section 151 CPC for modifying the share of the parties, in view of the death of respondent no.2/defendant no.2. The divorced wife of defendant no.2 - late Nagappa Reddy who was brought on record as his legal representative, filed objections to IA- 1/2017 stating that she had no knowledge about the decree of divorce passed against her. She also stated that she was awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC, and therefore, she is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties on behalf of her late husband. Therefore, the prayer made in IA-1/2017 was liable to be dismissed. 6. The Trial Court vide the order impugned allowed IA- 1/2017 in part and it was held that respondent no.2(a) i.e., divorced wife of Nagappa Reddy, will also get equal share in the share of deceased Nagappa Reddy allotted to him in the preliminary decree along with the other parties to the final decree proceedings. Assailing the said order, petitioners are before this Court. 7. Assailing the said order, petitioners are before this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of respondent no.2 in this petition, with late Nagappa Reddy was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted in M.C.No.7/1971 on 27.07.1972. The same has attained finality. Thereafter, respondent no.2 herein has initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.pC before the jurisdictional Family Court and in a revision petition filed before this Court in CRP.No.1765/1996 c/w CRP.No.260/1996, the maintenance awarded to respondent no.2 herein was modified to Rs.300/- per month. Merely for the reason that the divorced wife has been granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- per month, the Trial Court was not justified in allotting a share in the share of deceased defendant no.2 viz., Nagappa Reddy. He submits that at best a charge could have been created over the share which was allotted to Nagappa Reddy, and a share in the said property could not have been allotted to respondent no.2 who is the divorced wife of Nagappa Reddy. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SADHU SINGH VS. GURDWARA SAHIB NARIKE AND OTHERS - (2006) 8 SCC 75 . 8. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that undisputedly respondent no.2 has been awarded maintenance in the proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 Cr.PC before the competent court. She is entitled to recover the said amount from the property of deceased respondent no.2 - Nagappa Reddy. The Trial Court considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has allotted a share in the share of defendant no.2/respondent no.2 - Nagappa Reddy which was allotted to him in the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.15197/1999, thereby a right is created on respondent no.2 in the property of deceased defendant no.2 - Nagappa Reddy and in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), the right of respondent no.2 over the share allotted to her by the Trial Court has become absolute. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.TULASAMMA AND OTHERS VS. SESHA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. - 1977(3) SCC 99 and also in the case of MUNNI DEVI ALIAS NATHI DEVI (DEAD) THR LRS. AND ORS. VS. RAJENDRA ALIAS LALLU LAL (DEAD) THR LRS. AND ORS. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.TULASAMMA AND OTHERS VS. SESHA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. - 1977(3) SCC 99 and also in the case of MUNNI DEVI ALIAS NATHI DEVI (DEAD) THR LRS. AND ORS. VS. RAJENDRA ALIAS LALLU LAL (DEAD) THR LRS. AND ORS. - AIR 2022 SC 2596 . He further submits that in the case of TEJ BHAN (D) THROUGH LR. AND ORS. VS. RAM KISHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. - CIVIL APPEAL No.6557/2022 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the inconsistent views taken in various judgments, after the judgment in Tulasamma's case supra and also Sadhu Singh's case supra, with a view that there should be clarity and certainty in interpretation of Section 14 of the Act, has referred the matter to a larger bench for re-conciling the principles laid down in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submits that, therefore, till the larger bench decides the matter, consideration of this writ petition be deferred. 9. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the marriage of respondent no.2 herein with deceased respondent no.2/defendant no.2 - Nagappa Reddy was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted in M.C.No.7/1971 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge, Bengaluru District, on 27.07.1972. Perusal of the order passed in M.C.No.7/1971 would go to show that Nagappa Reddy had earlier filed M.C.No.1/1968 seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights and inspite of there being a decree passed in his favour, his wife had failed to join him, and therefore, M.C.No.7/1971 was filed with a prayer to dissolve the marriage. 10. Though a contention is urged on behalf of respondent no.2 that she was not aware of the order passed in M.C.No.7/1971, the copy of the order passed in M.C.No.7/1971 which is made available to this Court would go to show that she was represented by an advocate in the said proceedings and she also had led evidence on her behalf in the said proceedings. It appears that subsequently, she had filed Crl. Misc. No.128/1987 under Section 125 Cr.PC before the jurisdictional Family Court at Bengaluru, seeking maintenance and the Trial Court had granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month by order dated 05.12.1995. It appears that subsequently, she had filed Crl. Misc. No.128/1987 under Section 125 Cr.PC before the jurisdictional Family Court at Bengaluru, seeking maintenance and the Trial Court had granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month by order dated 05.12.1995. The said order was challenged by Nagappa Reddy as well as respondent no.2 herein before this Court in CRP.No.1765/1996 and CRP.No.260/1996 which were disposed of on 11.08.1998 and the maintenance amount awarded by the Trial Court was reduced to Rs.300/- from Rs.400/- per month. 11. It appears that Nagappa Reddy who was arrayed as respondent no.2 in FDP.No.15016/2004 had died during the pendency of the said petition on 22.01.2016, and thereafter, respondent no.2 herein was brought on record as his legal representative. IA.no.1/2017 was filed on behalf of the petitioners in FDP.No.15016/2004 after the death of Nagappa Reddy to modify the share of the parties in view of his death. This application was opposed by respondent no.2 herein contending that since she was awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC, she is also entitled for a share in the property of her husband. 12. It is relevant to note here that respondent no.2 was not put in possession of any extent of land belonging to her husband at any point of time. She has sought for a share in the share allotted to Nagappa Reddy in the preliminary decree, in lieu of maintenance amount awarded to her. Since respondent no.2 is the divorced wife of Nagappa Reddy, undisputedly she is not entitled to succeed to his estate, and merely for the reason that there is an order passed under Section 125 Cr.PC granting maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.300/- per month, the Trial Court was not justified in allotting a share in the share of deceased defendant no.2 - Nagappa Reddy to respondent no.2 herein. 13. In Sadhu Singh's case, Tulasamma's case and Munni Devi's case supra, the question with regard to right of a female Hindu possessed of the property on the date of the Act in which she had a previous existing right or a right to maintenance was considered, and it is held in the said cases that if a Hindu female is put in possession of the property towards the right of her maintenance in view of Section 14(1) of the Act, her limited right in estate would transform into her absolute estate. 14. 14. In the present case, at no point of time respondent no.2 was put in possession of any extent of land in the suit schedule property in lieu of the maintenance amount awarded to her under Section 125 Cr.PC, and therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention urged on behalf of her, that her right in the share of defendant no.2 - Nagappa Reddy had enlarged to an absolute right in view of Section 14(1) of the Act. Since the case of respondent no.2 is not covered under the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh's case, Tulasamma's case and Munni Devi's case supra, the order passed in Tej Bhan's case referring the question of right of a Hindu female under Section 14 of the Act to a larger Bench is of no consequence to the present case. 15. The Trial Court in view of Section 100 of the Transfer of Propert Act, at best, could have created a charge over the property which fell to the share of defendant no.2 - Nagappa Reddy, towards the maintenance amount that he was liable to pay to respondent no.2 herein, but could not have granted a share in his property, since respondent no.2 herein was not his wife as on the date of his death. 16. A reading of the impugned order would also go to show that, in addition to allotting a share in the share of deceased defendant no.2 - Nagappa Reddy, to respondent no.2 herein, the Trial Court has also allotted a share each to respondent nos.9 to 11 who are the purchasers of the property. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that after the death of Nagappa Reddy, only the share of his relatives who have been held entitled for a share in the suit schedule property would get enlarged, and not the share of the purchasers. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order impugned passed on IA.no.1/2017 to the extent it relates to granting a share in the share of deceased Nagappa Reddy to respondent no.2 herein (respondent no.2(a) in FDP.No.15016/2004) and granting shares to respondent nos.9 to 11 in the final decree proceedings who are the purchasers of the portion of the suit schedule property is bad in law. To that extent, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 17. To that extent, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 17. Writ petition is allowed in part. The order impugned dated 20.08.2019 passed on IA.no.1/2017 in FDP.No.15016/2004 by the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, to the extent it relates to allotting a share to respondent no.2 herein (respondent no.2(a) in FDP.No.15016/2004) in the share of deceased Nagappa Reddy allotted to him in the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.15197/1999, and allotting a share to respondent nos.9 to 11 in the FDP.No.15016/2004 who are the purchasers of portion of the property, is set aside, and the said order in so far as it relates to allotting a share in the share of deceased Nagappa Reddy to petitioner nos.2 to 6, respondent nos.1 & 3, 4, 5(a) to 5(c) & 6 to 8 in FDP.No.15016/2004 is confirmed.